Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

When does this colossal Hunnic cheating end?

PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 1,601
edited August 2015 in General Discussion
So I've been playing as the WRE, on normal mode I must admit. I'm currently about 200 or so turns into the game, and things were going pretty well for me. I'd defeated the barbarians attacking, stabilized the realm and was starting to expand myself.

Then the Huns showed up in my land and starting raiding with about six stacks. No big deal, I'm rich and have armies - so I was able to destroy all of their stacks (despite the fact that they have full stacks of uber elite units) killing Attila. Then another three showed up, and I managed to destroy them as well, again killing Attila, though by this point my armies were quite weak.

Then out of nowhere another 8 full stacks just appeared in my lands...what the hell?

So then I saw that these Hunnic armies all have a -100% to unit upkeep modifier. Nice cheating there Huns - no wonder you can keep so many stacks. But in any event I decided to the maths on this to demonstrate just how much AI cheating is actually going on here.

The cost of a single Hunnic turbo elite overpowered army (the compositions of which you can see below) is about 16325 gold. So for the eight that are now in my land, that comes out to a whopping 130,600 gold. Multiply that by 2 to account for the 9 stacks I already killed over the four or five previous turns and we're talking over 260,000 gold to buy these armies.

If we then look at the upkeep (bearing in mind that the Huns have no land whatsoever and have only razed 3 of my cities) we are talking a gigantic upkeep cost of 8960 gold per turn per army. With at least 8 stacks currently living, that comes out to a ball-busting 71,680 gold per turn on military upkeep alone.

Non of this of course, is to go into detail over the speed at which these stacks are appearing.

So my question is, when the hell do these cheat stacks stop spawning, and why can't you people at CA come up with a challenge that doesn't involve just letting the AI cheat to high heaven? It is contrived and pretty boring.

dfp8bjv.jpg

As you can see here, this is a typical Hunnic stack (in fact they all appear to use this format). Anyone who has played the game knows how ridiculously overpowered some of these units - including the WW1 howitzer onagers. Just to give you a bit of an idea if you didn't know, the Uar Chosen Warriors have three times the morale of Legio Comistatenses and twice the morale of the WRE's best infantry unit the Herculani Seniores. For their part, the "First Wave Lancers" have a charge bonus of roughly 230 - which basically means GG to anything that they charge head on - and this isn't even discussing any of the other units, or the fact that most of these units have xp on them.

So basically CA, your idea of a fun challenge is to just give the AI infinite money, seemingly infinite stacks and the best units in the game? Ok then.
Post edited by PlanetMarsupial on
«134

Comments

  • xjlxkingxjlxking Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited March 2015
    Make sure you beat Attila twice in one turn
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar
  • Ironside12Ironside12 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,127
    edited March 2015
    How else would you propose they make it a challenge? The Huns did have a load of men, and I'm afraid this is the only way they can organise it... unless they started the Huns with a lot more Hordes, but high level buildings sustaining them all.. I suppose that would work.

    As for when the cheating stops in this game.. After you kill Attila twice after he's King and some gathering of the tribes thing has shown up.

    As for the cheating stopping in TW series in general, probably never because I don't want the AI becoming smarter on higher difficulties, I want it functioning at its best constantly, even if it's best is horrid.
    Sjiriki wrote: »
    Balancing is a far more intricate thing than looking at who wins a 1v1 fight.

    My Build:
    CPU- i7-4790k Devils Canyon @4.6Ghz
    Cooler: Corsair H110i GT
    RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro
    PSU- Corsair 1200i 1200W
    GPU-R9 290X Sapphire Tri-X
    Boot Drive: Intel 530 series 240GB SSD
    Game Drive: Intel 730 series 480GB SSD
    Storage Drive: WD Black 2TB HDD
  • DetailedEyesDetailedEyes Senior Member AustraliaRegistered Users Posts: 4,715
    edited March 2015
    It ends when you kill Attila, pretty simple.
    "We shall have peace. We shall have peace when you answer for the burning of the Westfold, and the children that lie dead there. When the lives of the soldiers, whose bodies were hewn even as they lay dead against the Gates of the Hornburg are avenged! When you hang from a gibbet, for the sport of your own crows, we shall have peace."

    Theoden to Saruman at Orthanc, also my total war philosophy.
  • SacerdosSacerdos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 278
    edited March 2015
    Easiest way is to bribe them for peace until Attila dies.
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    It ends when you kill Attila, pretty simple.

    I've killed his entire unit in battle twice, except of course he didn't actually die.
  • xjlxkingxjlxking Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited March 2015
    Leving wrote: »
    I've killed his entire unit in battle twice, except of course he didn't actually die.
    in one turn?
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    xjlxking wrote: »
    in one turn?

    You can't kill someone twice in one turn lol
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    also he just died...but still this ******ed -100% upkeep cost modifier continues lawl
  • Ironside12Ironside12 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,127
    edited March 2015
    Leving wrote: »
    also he just died...but still this ******ed -100% upkeep cost modifier continues lawl

    It'll continue, but there will be no more armies that get it, since he's dead, wipe the Huns out and you're good :p
    Sjiriki wrote: »
    Balancing is a far more intricate thing than looking at who wins a 1v1 fight.

    My Build:
    CPU- i7-4790k Devils Canyon @4.6Ghz
    Cooler: Corsair H110i GT
    RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro
    PSU- Corsair 1200i 1200W
    GPU-R9 290X Sapphire Tri-X
    Boot Drive: Intel 530 series 240GB SSD
    Game Drive: Intel 730 series 480GB SSD
    Storage Drive: WD Black 2TB HDD
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    It'll continue, but there will be no more armies that get it, since he's dead, wipe the Huns out and you're good :p

    Well I would if they didn't have not only the best units in the game, but units which absolutely blow anything that the WRE can get out of the water. There is really very little you can do when they have a spam of units with 3,4 or sometimes 5 times better morale. On many of these units you literally have to kill every single man before they will rout. It's rather stupid.
  • DopeDawgDopeDawg Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 128
    edited March 2015
    Why do they get stacks full of elite units, I don't get it.
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    DopeDawg wrote: »
    Why do they get stacks full of elite units, I don't get it.

    Yes this is exactly my point.

    I understand that the only way CA have come up with to make the game a challenge is to let the AI spam armies, but really, the full stack elite stuff is just total nonsense. As I already pointed out, what makes it worse is that Hunnic elite units are exceptionally overpowered to the point where even a 2 to 1 numerical advantage still puts the battle balance in their favour.

    It's kinda just lazy from CA to say, oh here AI, have unlimited stacks of turbo quality troops. As we all know, a basic strategic tenant is that you can either go for a small amount of high quality or a blob of low quality. Having a blob of high quality is just OP.
  • Ironside12Ironside12 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,127
    edited March 2015
    I think the reason that the Huns get elites, rather than a mix or just standard troops, is to show their superiority. Since the AI can not replicate any superior Hunnic tactics, which they used against the Romans, they've just got to have the better troops as the advantage. On Legendary it is far, far worse on top of the elites, their bonuses make them unroutable.

    As much as I'd prefer CA make the challenge realistic, there's simply no way it'll ever happen, which is a pity. While realism could be great, it is a Total War game..
    Sjiriki wrote: »
    Balancing is a far more intricate thing than looking at who wins a 1v1 fight.

    My Build:
    CPU- i7-4790k Devils Canyon @4.6Ghz
    Cooler: Corsair H110i GT
    RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro
    PSU- Corsair 1200i 1200W
    GPU-R9 290X Sapphire Tri-X
    Boot Drive: Intel 530 series 240GB SSD
    Game Drive: Intel 730 series 480GB SSD
    Storage Drive: WD Black 2TB HDD
  • SacerdosSacerdos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 278
    edited March 2015
    They weren't really superior to the Romans. By the height of Attila's Hun Empire, the bulk of their forces were Germanic vassals who fought in the same fashion as Rome's Germanic allies, which were also the bulk of Rome's forces.

    Ultimately they were wiped out by those same Germanic vassals when Attila died and they rebelled. Which is ironically similar to Rome's fall.

    Also Attila didn't unite the Huns until 445 AD and died in 453 ad. Strangely in game he becomes a threat in 420 ad and dies in 445 ad.
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    I think the reason that the Huns get elites, rather than a mix or just standard troops, is to show their superiority. Since the AI can not replicate any superior Hunnic tactics, which they used against the Romans, they've just got to have the better troops as the advantage. On Legendary it is far, far worse on top of the elites, their bonuses make them unroutable.

    As much as I'd prefer CA make the challenge realistic, there's simply no way it'll ever happen, which is a pity. While realism could be great, it is a Total War game..

    The Huns weren't actually anything special in the grand scheme of things. When we think about the very greatest militaries of all time - the ancient Romans, the Alexandrian Greeks, the Mongols, the Imperial British navy - the Huns are not really anywhere to be found. What did they actually achieve? They were a thorn in the side of the Eastern Roman Empire for a while and capitalized a little on the declining Roman Empire by raiding Italy before retreating, but they didn't pull off anything stunning. Really they were just a poor man's Mongols.

    This idea that they had amazing military tactics and soldiers that deserve to go down in annals of time is kind of stupid, as is the fact that their units in this game are immensely overpowered. You know, I wouldn't have minded that much in Rome II if CA had made legionnaires the most OP infantry in the game because that at least would have had some historical authenticity - but they didn't because it's a video game. It's meant to be balanced so the battles are fun. The Huns were known for being good horsemen, so why the hell do they have the best infantry in the game? This would have been like CA giving the Romans in Rome II the best cavalry in the game. It makes no sense and messes with the balance of the game.

    Also I reject your notion that CA couldn't make the game a fun challenge without just forcing elite AI stacks down your throat. I say this whilst looking at a 3 province ERE which has the following military:

    qVq00Tb.jpg

    And that's just what's on the screen - there are more stacks up north. Are you telling me CA can't do better than this? They just undermine the entire point of economic warfare with this idiocy. You can't economically or logistically destroy an enemy in this game, and that just reduces the amount of strategies you can use. It's actually easier to fight a large Empire, because at least then their armies are spread out. With this small factions with military spams, you have to try and kill 9 stacks all at once. It shouldn't be happening like this.

    The way you make a game challenging is by making people consider their strategic decisions. Yes, it's ok to have a little AI cheating, but not like this. Use history as a guide for the challenge - you know where is the logistical challenge of war? Where is the meaningful diplomacy? I notice that Attila is a massive improvement over Rome II in almost every way, and I actually enjoy the game, but this boring stack spamming is just a cop out from producing a fun late game challenge, just like corruption is a contrived mechanic to make life difficult.

    I really want CA to continue supporting this game for many years, not just to say oh look, the fans like it, so we'll patch it for six months, move on and let the modders do the rest.
  • MrGrendelMrGrendel Member Registered Users Posts: 90
    edited March 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    How else would you propose they make it a challenge?

    Perhaps CA can finally make an AI that isn't completely idiotic and doesn't need a billion gold upkeep and 3x your armies every single turn just to prop it up?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,666
    edited March 2015
    MrGrendel wrote: »
    Perhaps CA can finally make an AI that isn't completely idiotic and doesn't need a billion gold upkeep and 3x your armies every single turn just to prop it up?
    Yeah, let's see you program one AI like that for a game like TW. Hint, it's not as easy it sounds.

  • IglooHaterIglooHater Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 384
    edited March 2015
    I found the hun elite stacks to be pretty beatable, and you're wrong about the WRE not having what it takes to kill them. However, the one thing that made it harder than it had to be for me was their large onagers, which started showing up long before I could build them myself. Their two large onagers can easily account for 300-400 casualties off the top in a battle.
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    Yeah, let's see you program one AI like that for a game like TW. Hint, it's not as easy it sounds.

    EU IV AI doesn't need to cheat to be half decent.
  • TheOooooooooooldOneTheOooooooooooldOne Member Registered Users Posts: 76
    edited March 2015
    Post removed...inflammatory comments.
  • TheBraveKnightTheBraveKnight Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,659
    edited March 2015
    @Levin

    In regards to that ERE screenshot - That is just absolutely ridiculous. How is that possible except for their bonus income buff which is silly and overpowered. Then my next question is why are they just camping at their city instead of reclaiming their lost land?

    It's amusing how the ERE is stronger with only a few regions then they were as an empire. It is the problems like this that keep me from enjoying Attila and prevent me from replaying another campaign anytime soon.

    I hope CA adresses these concerns.
    Current Top 3 Total War List

    1) Thrones of Britannia - Art style, soundtrack, aging portraits, sieges, politics, and trait system!
    (Prob 3 Kingdoms after I invest more hours. Awesome awesome game!)

    2) Warhammer 2 - Eye of the Vortex

    3) Shogun 2

    Honorable mentions - Medieval 1

  • publordpublord Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 7
    edited March 2015
    Honestly, they will probably end up changing this one too. Civil war in R2 was extremely obnoxious and dumbed down in that 20 stacks could spawn at your capitol.

    There just wasn't anything fun or interesting to it, since you just used walled cities and spies to grind them down. It was really more of an obstruction to playing the real game until they changed civil wars in EE.

    The Huns are the same way with their OP units and obnoxious stack compositions.

    It kills replayability for me since I have very little motivation to fight the same exact army comp in another campaign after having to grind down twenty of those as WRE. At the very least, there needs to be some more variety in the hun stacks so you are not fighting the same army over and over
  • FrogerFroger Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 174
    edited March 2015
    Salve,

    My current trick on killing hunnic armies is to rush the tech for large onagers, equip all armies with at least 2 of them and pray my onagers destroy the huns onagers before they do... as they seem to stay where they are as long as they have onagers and attacking them with anything but onagers is a suicide-mission (say what you want, these things are heavy mortars). Without onagers, the huns will come closer and try to break your formation... but mortarshells don't care about how strong their armour is and if you controll a heavy onager personally (yeah, only works if you don't need to rush troops arround...) a few shots of boiling oil and explosions right into the huns, while they fight with your men reduces their amount singnificantly, but good aim is required, as you are firing 2-3m in front of your own troops.
    Also never attack two hunnic stacks at once (At night we fight).
    Luck also helps, have allies between you and the rest of the world, not desolated regions, with some luck the huns focus on them, while you send your armies, fighting on allied ground, but not close to your homeland and destroy the hunnic hordes.
    Find Atilla, focus on Atilla, hunt Atilla, bomb Atilla from his horse, let your donkeys slaugther Atilla (as he seems to be sort of one-man-army).

    Laugh in the world's face as you raid cities, built with fool's gold and bath in the blood of soldiers, paid with counterfeit money.

    Edit: Large onagers... large onagers all the time
    "Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war." - William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
  • crazychameleoncrazychameleon Senior Member Great BritainRegistered Users Posts: 467
    edited March 2015
    Leving wrote: »
    The Huns weren't actually anything special in the grand scheme of things. When we think about the very greatest militaries of all time - the ancient Romans, the Alexandrian Greeks, the Mongols, the Imperial British navy - the Huns are not really anywhere to be found. What did they actually achieve? They were a thorn in the side of the Eastern Roman Empire for a while and capitalized a little on the declining Roman Empire by raiding Italy before retreating, but they didn't pull off anything stunning. Really they were just a poor man's Mongols.

    This idea that they had amazing military tactics and soldiers that deserve to go down in annals of time is kind of stupid, as is the fact that their units in this game are immensely overpowered. You know, I wouldn't have minded that much in Rome II if CA had made legionnaires the most OP infantry in the game because that at least would have had some historical authenticity - but they didn't because it's a video game. It's meant to be balanced so the battles are fun. The Huns were known for being good horsemen, so why the hell do they have the best infantry in the game? This would have been like CA giving the Romans in Rome II the best cavalry in the game. It makes no sense and messes with the balance of the game.

    Also I reject your notion that CA couldn't make the game a fun challenge without just forcing elite AI stacks down your throat. I say this whilst looking at a 3 province ERE which has the following military:

    qVq00Tb.jpg

    And that's just what's on the screen - there are more stacks up north. Are you telling me CA can't do better than this? They just undermine the entire point of economic warfare with this idiocy. You can't economically or logistically destroy an enemy in this game, and that just reduces the amount of strategies you can use. It's actually easier to fight a large Empire, because at least then their armies are spread out. With this small factions with military spams, you have to try and kill 9 stacks all at once. It shouldn't be happening like this.

    The way you make a game challenging is by making people consider their strategic decisions. Yes, it's ok to have a little AI cheating, but not like this. Use history as a guide for the challenge - you know where is the logistical challenge of war? Where is the meaningful diplomacy? I notice that Attila is a massive improvement over Rome II in almost every way, and I actually enjoy the game, but this boring stack spamming is just a cop out from producing a fun late game challenge, just like corruption is a contrived mechanic to make life difficult.

    I really want CA to continue supporting this game for many years, not just to say oh look, the fans like it, so we'll patch it for six months, move on and let the modders do the rest.
    Corruption is certainly not a contrived mechanic as it was a comtributing factor to the fall of the wre and is still very prominent in china, India and Russia today. Yes CAI needs improvement, but that is extremely diffficult.
    I love the smell of Greek fire in the morning...
  • HannibalBarkasHannibalBarkas Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,860
    edited March 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    How else would you propose they make it a challenge? The Huns did have a load of men, and I'm afraid this is the only way they can organise it... unless they started the Huns with a lot more Hordes, but high level buildings sustaining them all.. I suppose that would work.

    As for when the cheating stops in this game.. After you kill Attila twice after he's King and some gathering of the tribes thing has shown up.

    As for the cheating stopping in TW series in general, probably never because I don't want the AI becoming smarter on higher difficulties, I want it functioning at its best constantly, even if it's best is horrid.
    It ends when you kill Attila, pretty simple.

    I really like you guys but you have become the biggest apologists of this game. It's painfully obvious that the AI is underwhelming and one of the biggest problems. You don't want the AI to become smarter, Ironside, horrid is enough, really? That's one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a while. In terms of cheating the AI is even much worse than in Rome 2. The AI gets free full stacks with no upkeep and their leader has to be killed twice at full moon, otherwise he's immortal.

    I don't consider a cheating AI a challenge. It's annoying, nothing more. A smart AI, that's a challenge. Is that difficult to achieve? Yes, but that isn't an excuse for a company with 15 years of experience and a lot of resources.
  • PlanetMarsupialPlanetMarsupial Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,601
    edited March 2015
    Corruption is certainly not a contrived mechanic as it was a comtributing factor to the fall of the wre and is still very prominent in china, India and Russia today. Yes CAI needs improvement, but that is extremely diffficult.

    Of course it is contrived. It's just an excuse for CA to say oh here, lose 80% of your income.
  • seienchinseienchin Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,572
    edited March 2015
    Leving wrote: »
    Of course it is contrived. It's just an excuse for CA to say oh here, lose 80% of your income.
    You are 100% right.
    Not to mention that some small countries are just as corrupt as big ones.
    A very tough to implement system would be to have small increase in corruption by a bigger empire and besides that having to choose between some corruption but good garrisons, lots of corruption but easy recruting germanic troops (let them settle and have their own laws in exchange for having them fight for you) or smaller corruption but difficult and long recruiting.
    The problem though is that CA for reasons I will never understand discontinued MW2 recruitment system. With that it could work soooooo much better.
  • Hidden GunmanHidden Gunman Moderator Moderators Posts: 4,606
    edited March 2015
    This is purely my personal opinion, but we are seeing a situation where 'difficulty' is clearly tied to how much killing of the opposition you have to do, where the opposition doesn't behave smarter, it's simply provided far more assets and resources than the player can hope to get. TW has been turned into a first person shooter, from a game dynamic point of view, where we scurry around through the game unlocking stronger weapons (tiered units), and beat up on a bunch of minions (minor factions) to get rewards (coin, cities, skill and ability upgrades), then we fight the big boss (Attilla).

    After extensively reading through these forums, I've noticed that some people are commenting that they are bored with the game, or finding it stale, only a couple of weeks after release...I don't think the issue is the subject matter, I think the real issue is that the game plays out so much like an FPS that it (1) Doesn't appeal to some people; (2) is modelled off a very boring approach to gaming (personal viewpoint, I don't like linear FPS 'kill the boss' games). The overwhelming advantages provided to the Hun non-player faction (and to a lesser extent any non-player faction) highlights this. Regardless of whatever victory conditions are in play, the game will always rotate around its' fps design model, unless a break is made with the currently existing power balance - the interplay between Imperium growth, diplomacy, AI faction bonuses, and AI behaviour.
    Yes, it's me.

    Gungho |Takeda| Yamagato Masakage

    You have spoken with clarity of thought and rhetorical flourish...you have surely earned the favour of the mods.

    If you didn't, click here...
  • xjlxkingxjlxking Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited March 2015
    Corruption is certainly not a contrived mechanic as it was a comtributing factor to the fall of the wre and is still very prominent in china, India and Russia today. Yes CAI needs improvement, but that is extremely diffficult.

    Yeah but that's a bit dumb to use as an excuse. It's like how squalor was in Rome 1. It would keep increasing no matter what to the point that your entire empire would be rebelling. There was no way around it.

    That's pretty much what CA has been doing with difficulty since forever. Artificial difficulty. Don't get me wrong it's needed on games but they went overboard on Attila because their AI just couldn't keep up

    We went a lot way. Remember in Rome 1 where you can take one 5+ stacks with one of yours and win everytime? The AI was basso they compensated by giving income. Giving an AI countless of stack, no base building, and a player to be a bulls eye is just as bad.
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar
  • ThesaboteurThesaboteur Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 812
    edited March 2015
    Bring back the minister tab from Empire/Napoleon. I think it's a fair better way of dealing with economic and political issues. That way you don't have all your (best) generals murdered in one turn and have to pay money to equip another one.
This discussion has been closed.